Printable View
A good read in today's Star, Sun. Jan. 26, page A17. I know , I know , the Star. It is an article written by Jaime Watt a conservative strategist and chairman of Navigator Ltd. Lots of good information there for any political party that wants to lead the country. Discuss. After you have read it....:thumbup:
... provide a link if you want anyone to read it... the Toronto Star is such a sh** rag and lies so much it isn't worth wasting time looking at. They used to send it to me for free and I still cancelled it.... a complete waste of paper.
So it can't be informative if it is in the Star, even if it is written by a conservative strategist? Most well informed people read things they do not necessarily agree with. I read the sun and post as well as the star every day just for that reason. To get perspective. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. The star has the biggest circulation of any Canadian daily newspaper , so someone must read it. How can you complain about what someone writes ...if you have not read it, and refuse to do so?
Do their circulation figures include the issues they send out for free? Each time I click on The Star website,it blocks all content unless I buya subscription and that ain't happenin' any time soon. So,my friend Google found his article and you're quite correct that it's a good read.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Google Jamie Watt and you can read the article for free.
.... informative ....???.... maybe on the sales at the store. Why would I waste my time known for leftist fiction? If I wanted to watch lies I can watch CBC... looking at the recent numbers it's numbers are pathetic too. It's in the Star so it will be about climate or sexual orientation or some social spin... truth, budgets, coverups, violations of ethics and the law... not a leftie speaking point.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
also it isn't the largest and is dropping like a stone.... down 22% and I heard they keep cutting... 100 jobs just before Christmas if
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...by_circulation
Likely includes the free ones ...Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...ss-canada.html
So you have a closed mind, and are not going to read something that has a different point of view, that is so sad and says a lot about you. Maybe others on here are a little more accepting of looking at a different point of view, from a card carrying conservative strategist, no less. A case of shoot the messenger, (Star), not the message I guess.. I defy anyone who takes the time to read the article to disagree with what he says... and his very astute observations, no matter where it was printed.
When the messenger is known to be biased and a .... spinner of fiction.... why waste time with it? If you can't post a link and I won't pay for be fed spin so....Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
But just to humour you I opened theStar up....
Sad.... Kobe Bryant died, Coronavirus... that's anywhere....
Tried opening a couple articles, all pay to read and then there's the "spin" on right-wing extremism .... probably as usual ignoring bigger issues like ANTIFA, our PM's sentiments, etc.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ents-show.html
But they did atleast show one of the biggest extremist out there on the left.
https://images.thestar.com/5XsoNZctI.../rightwing.jpg
Just a reminder... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8igrMJ9L4po
What else.. Khardasians , the usual political kiss a** on firearms.. Ban Assault rifles AND handguns... pay to read .... about like paying for used toilet paper likely based on past material I did read.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...e-problem.html
The idea of an open mind is to allow in facts AND filter and use them in items of truth and relevance..... Toronto Star .... seldom fits and in general isn't worth the time since it is irrelevant in a moral and intellectual discussion.
So if you can't bother providing a FREE link, it isn't worth the effort and since it is the Star... well the b.s. about climate change, gender identity and Justlied's beard... yawn! Looking at the headlines I see nothing that is probably not better covered and with real facts in other media outlets without paying. If you want to read it feel free... I won't pay to read their articles and have them ignore/not disclose the facts and tell me what to think.. especially since they now seem to be requiring paying, well the Toronto Star isn't worth reading when I got it for free..... I defy you to provide a link or past the idiotic article here and prove it isn't just more political b.s. spin we have come to loath from the Red Star... https://img.favpng.com/1/24/1/soviet...G5Sj2A9Mpb.jpg
I think the fact the Star has the largest circulation is a reflection of the size of the Toronto/Ontario market, not necessarily the quality of the product. The fact it’s readership is tanking has nothing to do with the size of the market.
Mosquito.....in the time you spent authoring the exhaustive posts above, you could have found and read the short article.
Not an awful read, but generally speaking I’m sick of hearing “LGBTQ” and believe me I’m not homophobic - my sister is a lesbian and our family welcomes her and her partner without question. It just sucks up too much attention in the media.
I saw it for free, online , read it in a couple of minutes. But that does not fit the mosq. narrative. Those who bother the read it would find some real nuggets of truth in it.
I agree. I truly couldn’t care less about what consenting adults do in their sex lives. None of my business. But I tire of the constant “in your face” and defining people as homophobes. Pretty sure most couldn’t care less, doesn’t make them homophobes. This “either or” mentality doesn’t solve anything. I’m also fed up with the non stop talk and time wasted on marijuana now. Again, do what you want , I could care less. Having said that any openly anti-gay candidate is toxic to any political party and should be given the boot. You could say the same about candidates who are clearly anti Semitic. Plenty of them around too. Yes, I read the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by 73hunter
Glad you did. I then respect your opinion on the content. Some con. candidates in the last election, did say openly they were anti-gay, anti abortion. To those who commented without reading it, I have to ask, why?
People don’t jump into the political game to lose. Publicly admit you are anti gay or anti abortion and in this country you will lose. If you don’t understand something that simple you clearly aren’t very bright and shouldn’t waste your money trying to get elected. Trudough lies as much as trump does. Seems to work for them. Politicians will say anything to get in. Campaigns are who can be more convincing with their lies. The track record is what is important.
Everyone contemplating a run for political office need to be mindful of media techniques designed to elicit knee-jerk comments and off-the-cuff remarks they can then use to misquote,misconstrue and "spin" to facilitate an agenda. This is especially true with center-right candidates. I learned the hard way many decades ago when serving with law enforcement. The media is looking to sensationalize anything and everything that can sell advertising that generates revenue,especially,with print media that's just hanging on by their fingernails. For every politician that's not left-leaning,the media is not your friend.
I absolutely detest most of the media and how they report on a story. I had to attend an inquest into a chopper crash a number of years ago. The headlines later read, "Victims Insist On Death Flight." Absolutely no consideration for the 4 families involved whatsoever.
" For every politician that's not left -leaning the the media is not your friend'. Then please explain the Sun and the Post, they are both pro-con.
T . Please explain why the cons. made an anti- gay, anti-abortionist their leader. 'Clearly aren't very bright, shouldn't waste your money trying to get elected.'
I can't explain it because to me it's counter-intuitive. This may sound a tad "libertarian",but,I just wish people would mind their own damn business. Isn't there enough on their own plates without worrying about what's on other's? Back to the media comments,Calabasas County Sheriff's Office reports that Kobe Bryant's family heard about his death from TMZ media BEFORE they were notified by authorities. That's the exact same thing that happened to a victim's family when I was assigned to inform them about an accidental death of a family member. As can be imagined,it was devastating for them and the first incident among a couple of others that formed my opinion of the disgusting methods the media uses. Shortly after,the Ministry of the Attorney General formed a media/press office to handle news releases. Every officer was instructed to direct all inquiries to them,even for the most mundane subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Exactly, CBC and Toronto Star can be counted on to be a waste of time better spent on anything else ... and then someone says.... go read this from the Star but is lacking the ability to cut and paste a link.... given the source... material better off ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
So in the end any Conservative leader is fighting
1) the Liberals (that lie repeatedly.. spending, budgets (off by about 100B from 2015 promises by now), SNC, ethics, taxes....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY3I2ewuxQ0
2) the NDP (talking points and factual errors....)
3) the media with their $100,000,000 a month CBC and $700M to "selected" media outlets.
4) the propaganda groups like North 99, Lead Now, Press Progress ... unaccountable and outright lies.
and a public that often lacks the integrity or concern to look for the truth and respond to it.
So in the end to sum it Conservatives have to fight the coverups, lies, division and big money.
Just so happens that in the Sun today, liberal strategist Jim Warren has an article about the leadership race. But, it seems to me that Trudeau was selected leader under the same circumstances he warns about.
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...-conservatives
I can. Conservatives think a person can separate their personal beliefs from their job. Scheer has stated numerous times that he respects the Supreme Court of Canada decisions on the rights of Canadians who are a part of the LGQBT community and the abortion rights of women despite his personal beliefs. It is his choice not to walk in a Pride parade. Last time I checked Canadians were allowed to make their own decisions. However, we are starting to tread into a territory where if you don't show a particular group of Canadians a certain level of support that the group deem acceptable, you are somehow against what they stand for or worse have a secret agenda to do them harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I have never walked in a Pride parade. I probably never will. I am a Christian (United Church of Canada). I am not secretly harbouring a long term plan to deny gay people or woman their fundamental rights under Canadian law. I vote Conservative because I want a government who will try to be fiscally responsible. However, because of the way I vote, there are others out there who want to label me homophobic or some kind of cave man who demands his woman be tied to the stove and believes she is only good for procreation and cooking my dinner.
Scheer isn't perfect. His beliefs are his own and he shouldn't be or have been vilified for them. His beliefs (stemed from his religion) were judged but how come the same lens wasn't used for Trudeau and Singh? Trudeau is Roman Catholic and Singh is a Sikh. Both men have stated that their religion influences them yet neither one was accused of being anti-abortion or anti-gay despite both religions being against abortion and the Roman Catholic Church actively opposing homosexuality.
Why does the left can give Trudeau a pass on the worst behaviour by claiming he was young and he has changed and then use other's past behaviour or comments to try instill fear in others? Why does the left think it is fine for their guy who says he lives his life through his religious beliefs be fine with doing the job of PM because he can separate church and state and this other guy can't because his beliefs are influenced by his religion? Finally, why is it ok that Trudeau stated on numerous times he wants to bring people together but has no problem trying to rip apart a person for their beliefs?
^^^^^^^^^^^^ this!! ^^^^^^^^^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by dythbringer
Would you vote for a person who was openly a member of the KKK, but declared that there would be no government lynchings under their tenure? If it is just their personal beliefs, how could you hold that against them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
To the left, human rights are important. Scheer stood up in front of parliament and told Canada that gays should have fewer rights than the rest of Canada. That they should not have the right to marry because of how they were born. Just like the KKK believe people of colour should have fewer rights because of how they were born.
If you think that standing up in front of parliament and declaring that a specific group should be denied rights is equal to wearing blackface to an aladdin party, your opinion is not shared by the voting majority. If you think that standing up in front of parliament and declaring that a specific group should be denied rights is equal to stating you are Roman Catholic or a Sikh, then your opinion is also not shared by the voting majority.
The fact is that there is no record of Trudeau or Singh adamantly opposing equal rights for all Canadians, let alone doing so deliberately on the public record as an MP in front of parliament.
A person should be vilified if they hold villainous beliefs. To me, believing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they were born gay is no different from believing black people shouldn't be allowed on public transportation because they were born black. I don't care whether someone learned these beliefs from a church or from a Klan meeting or from a book.
It is true that Canadians are allowed to have their own beliefs, but that doesn't mean they won't be judged for those beliefs on election day.
Most excellent post Benjhind. Well said.
Equality before and under the law is a right. See section 15 of the Constitution.
Edit: The post to which this response was directed has been deleted.
As a father of 26 years, I know exactly why a father is so important to the human species. Maybe someone can tell me what rights a man/father has over the well being of his child.
Save yourself the bullsyte, because there isn't any.
That conversation can't be had, because people like you will label me anti-abortion if i bring it up. Equality, my azz.
So as far as I'm concerned, I got zero time/patients for people that simply create more division while peddling inclusiveness.
The KKK? Seriously! The left/socialists have the history of racism and are actively the largest group of racists on the planet.
Who's the Orange Man these days and who's behind all the hate?
'Why a father is so important to the human race.' Father or impregnator?....... Any father? Is a really bad father, better than no father? I know people with bad fathers who would disagree, they just wanted their father gone. Vicious cycle...... If you hate people who are haters do you thus become haters yourself? Eg. I hate people who hate gays. Are you saying that those hates are equal, and that I am just as bad as the people who hate gays? I hate the KKK ,does my hate of them make me a hater ,on par with them?
Maybe you just love to hate. You certain display here quite often.
Some on here make it so easy. What is worse , people who hate tolerance, or people who hate intolerant people? I would just say , if you did not hate anyone, I would not hate you. What came first the chicken or the egg? The egg of course, chickens evolved from reptiles that laid eggs.
Who said anything about hate, except you?Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
What many dislike is the in your face attitude and demands from that community. I don't understand why the city be shutting down streets so the queers can dance around the streets in a parade near naked for all to see, children included. To be honest it repulsive to say the least. Shame on the city for hosting that type of venue...
I guess the people who may not agree are automatically considered haters?...
No you would be called intolerant, if you took action to stop them, yes maybe you have crossed the line to hater. Do I have to bring up a tortured beaten guy, in a loin cloth (precursor to the thong), bleeding ,while carrying a cross down the street. Do kids need to see that? To be honest it is repulsive to say the least. I am tolerant of it. Would I be tolerant of a KKK parade, not on your life.
Please stop drinking the bong water...Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
I will put it another way. You are intolerant of abortions, but you tolerate those who desire one. BUT if you try to stop abortions because of your intolerance, , you have crossed that line.
If inquiring about my rights as a father triggers you to label me anti abortion. That would speak to your intolerance not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Sorry . I read to much into your comment about the rights of a father for the well being of his child, to be about an unborn one. As you brought up anti-abortion in your post. The rights of a father once the child is born are well established. I am a father and have two grown sons.
Again, just because Scheer didn’t agree with abortions and homosexuality didn’t mean he was anti. The Libranos accused Harper of having an agenda of wanting to abolish abortions. Never happened and he had a majority. No politician will touch abortion in this country. At least one who wants to be elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
As the leader of any party trying to get elected , don't say that you personally are against abortion or gays, or you will not get power. When you as an MP get up in the House of Commons and compare same sex marriage to dogs , as sheer did, you most certainly do prove, you are anti-gay.
It's always better to keep personal views to oneself when dealing with politics. The less ammo given to the media,the better. Steven Harper had it down to a science.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
.... Harper was a real PM .... as compared to the liar in charge we have now (ethics, SNC, JWR, Elbowgate, vacations galore, trade, ...) essentially then all the media did for months is talk about the $80,000 and Duffy... ignoring the 3 Libs that expensed way more and they are ignoring the lies and spending for the most part now. If he tried to keep his MP's in line he was ranted at about being a dictator... all while Trudeau is many times worse.... The amount of Liberal lies here .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BFpwjx1fUIQuote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
.... . we are over $100,000,000,000 away from the Liberal "truth"/"promises".... to put that in perspective it's well over $3000 PER person.... $12,000 for a family of four...
Seems Harper was right again...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imaRJvvyfR8
The media and left have decided murdering the unborn and no protection for them is the way to go so to try to do anything in that regard is nothing but a screaming point .... firearms (guns bad, criminals OK, just misunderstood), killing the unborn, climate change (other pollution is a distraction to them) ...
the Liberal/left ideology talking points that cannot have reality interfere with their repeating factual errors... https://www.therebel.media/climate-b...cal-statements
The left goal seems to be about tell me what to be outraged at, thinking isn't allowed.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUBy4iFU...name=4096x4096
No one has the right to force a woman , to carry a zygote- fetus she does not want for 9 months then give birth to it. No one. Period........ As for the rest of your cut and paste comments, the same drivel ,over and over again.
Then,what about the rights of the other half of the equation? Surely,you won't try to tell us that fathers have no say in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Don't worry about what he has to say, other than for amusement at the moment debate with him is a waste of time, there is no law preventing gender based, late term abortions etc., no protection for women, no requirement to provide alternatives and warnings on possible issues and he is OK with it.... the unborn dying painful deaths... no problem... to HIM. I learned long ago that beating ideologues with reality, facts, morality and even fists doesn't change their minds at all....Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Why argue with me, the LAW says it is so. The courts back up those laws. I will make it simple so you will understand....You do not become a father until the baby is born. That is why when a man finds out about the pregnancy he says, 'I am GOING to be a father'. He does not say, 'I am a father', why? because until the birth he is not. After the birth, his rights of fatherhood kick in. Until that point he has no rights over the fetus.
I had a response to your post but I lost it when I took to long to compose it as I am at work and I don't feel like trying to replicate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by benjhind
And yet Trudope continues to allow refugees flood this country, pays for housing, living expenses, schooling, more benefits than the rest of us working. Giving non-residents more rights than the rest of us and many are antigay Muslim....Quote:
Originally Posted by benjhind
Non-residents do not have more rights than citizens. That is nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
My apology, how about more financial and health benefits than residents. Last time I checked I pay for my own housing schooling living expenses, dental, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
So you are envious of people who come to this country with nothing get somewhere to sleep at night and food in their stomachs and take care of basic needs until they get on their feet financially? Just how much money do you think refugees cost you? Remember I am talking refugees, not economic asylum seekers.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
Compassion is a virtue not a vice. Helping refugees get on their feet and contributing to Canada fast is a better way to integrate them into our society.
Last year alone in Toronto I believe the number was around 75 million. Just where do you think that money comes from, trees, or tax payers?...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
That $75 million was for both refugees and asylum seekers. Give me a number for refugees please.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
25000 Syrian refugees will cost 1.2 billion over six years to resettle them here in Canada. Who do you think is footing the bill for that? How much do you think it costs tax payers? Not even mentioning illegal asylum seekers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Interesting. In this article:Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact...ners-1.2670735
and a link in the story with even lower numbers: https://ccrweb.ca/en/pensioners-myth
It says that refugees get assistance support for only a single year providing they need it. On top of that, it also claims that a refugee family in Ontario gets $2 065 as a one time start up allowance and then an estimated monthly support of $768 (although that may vary depending on where in Ontario they are located). So each refugee costs us roughly $11 000 per year based on my numbers and the grand total is $2.8 billion for one year. This assistance is only available for people who are not privately sponsored.
This is hardly $7.6 billion over 6 years because after the year is finished, the refugees aren't eligible for payments. We don't always take in 25 000 refugees in Toronto.. Last year, we took in 29 000 in the entire country so that number per year fluctuates. Also, since many refugees come here with no money, the Canadian government loans them money for both flight tickets and mandatory medical exams, which we expect them to pay with interest. I am not sure why you think that giving them less than the poverty rate in order to help them start a new life in order to contribute financially to Canada is a bad thing.
No one should be allowed to immigrate to this country unless (a) they have a marketable skill (b) they have no criminal record or subversive political affiliation and (c) they're 100% sponsored by a Canadian citizen for a minimum of 3 years. Not one thin dime of the cost should be borne by the taxpayers.
So you are answering your own question, how much is it costing me and every other tax payer? Far to much imo, we could spend that money on our own citizens getting them education so they can contribute to our society, but instead the hell with Canadians we can pay our own way even though theres many who want to go to school and have not enough money while they watch refugees handed the golden spoon when they arrive.. disgusting liberal governmentQuote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Yes I did answer my own question because you were not. You were making facts up to support an anti-refugee bias you have for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
$11 000 for one refugee is not too much money when that refugee will be supporting your CPP for their working career and contributing to your health care with their income tax. Tell you what, since there are 36 million people in Canada and each refugee costs $11 000 that works out to roughly 0.0003 cents per person in Canada per refugee. Since 2016 was the year that the Syrian refugee influx happened and the number of total refugees for that year was 46 700 (https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/record...1980-1.3382444) , please let me know in a PM where I can send a cheque to you for a $14 to cover how much money you lost in that year to all of these nasty refugees.
Well said, D.... :thumbup: They always say it's about the money, when really,......... it is not about the money.:shades:
Dyth your numbers are off not everyone works. Could probably split that number in half almost lol.
Then you who pays for the rent? I think the government also pays for alot of the places they are staying. Look at all the hotel costs.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
How much was the crowbar hotel?
Why not a more recent article instead of something 3 years ago... after all since then there have been way more than 50,000 more "irregular" refugees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/statistics...tatistics.aspx
https://torontosun.com/news/local-ne...-75m-this-year
"the $75 million does not include the $1 million per month that is being shelled out to house 200 refugees at the former North York Hydro building on Yonge St. That would bring next year’s tab to $87-million."
"This is on top of the $108 million for emergency hotel and motel spaces already approved in July. Robbinson said they’re currently using nine hotels — four for refugee claimants and five for non-refugees– and that the tab covers both refugee claimants and regular shelter users (the traditional homeless).
She said there are currently 2,400 refugee clients in the system. Some 1,800 are in hotels, 400 are still in shelters and 200 have transferred to the $1-million-a-month shelter at 5,800 Yonge St."
So $87M + $109M.... just for Toronto.
.... while CTV article says the "irregular" (illegal) entry is at $400,000,000 for Canada.... in one year
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/irregu...says-1.4197552
"between 2017 through next fiscal year, this prime minister is choosing to spend $1.1 billion on essentially what amounts to the abuse of our asylum system. Some of the numbers in here are absolutely shocking," Rempel said in response to the PBO report."
.... so we are spending over a billion, the shelters are full and those working with the homeless are calling it an emergency.... yet we keep letting more illegal migrants .. oh sorry ... .irregular immigrants come....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...onto-1.5400781
and the homeless with no place to go die...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...onto-1.5358048
But hey we got a few to leave .... no real dent in the 50,000 that were supposed to but...
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/ov...ing-in-canada/
Over 50,000 immigrants, many who illegally entered Canada through the border, were ordered deported but remain in the country,
...Over the past three years, the RCMP has intercepted 56,515 immigrants illegally entering Canada—mainly deriving from Hati and Nigeria. The vast majority of these immigrants remain in the country.
Much of this is owed to opaque bureaucratic red-tape. Any individual, for instance, can appeal their deportation notice to the Immigration and Refugee Board. After this, they can then ask a judge to review the case.
As a result of this, there is now a backlog of 64,929 cases relating to illegal immigration.
And who is paying for all these cases??Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
Lmaso [emoji1787][emoji848].
Surely it not them paying for it maybe some of them are lol.
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Paid thousands to stay away[emoji1787][emoji8]for the most part.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Exactly. But instead we bring in freeloaders who have absolutely nothing to offer except their hand out for a free ride...Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Any proof of that statement, or is it, just your opinion? Did you see the history of the people who died in the plane that was shot down. Almost all, were immigrants to Canada. Did you see all the Doctors, professors, Phd's ,scientists, and people with post graduate education on that plane,? They were the kind of people that Canada needs. The kind of people the world needs...... Or would you say...'not'.... because they were Muslim?Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
Immigrants and refugees are 2 different things. Immigrants choose to come to another country. Refugees come in fear from where they livedQuote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
I was referring to the cost per person in Canada. True not all 36 million people in Canada work; however, simply working doesn't make one a tax payer. Sales taxes are paid by all for instance and that is based on consumption with parents paying the taxes for what their children consume and that money can't be dismissed. Unless you can tell me where every penny of the taxes go, I think splitting the cost across the entire population is the simplest way to see how much a refugee costs a person in Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishfood
Taking in legit refugees is the right thing to do. Letting people in dragging designer luggage and carrying cell phones is not the right thing to do. There are millions of truly desperate people who have nothing but the tattered clothes on their backs and can’t feed themselves. The opportunists don’t come anywhere near that level of need. But, they will vote for Trudough as soon as they get a voter card. So, stack the voter pool. Control/pay off the media. Give millions of borrowed money to large corporations who are extremely profitable? Then claim they can’t afford to help the veterans? Unreal.
Alot of what you are speaking about is muddling actual refugees with economic asylum seekers (or illegal immigrants). These are two different problems but if you mash them up, the numbers of course go up.Quote:
Originally Posted by mosquito
My point is the cost of helping a refugee, an honest-to-god refugee as defined by most ration people, is neither financially crippling as some think nor they are not easy street getting loads of money.
I agree. We can dissect and debate the governments policies and decision without tearing down refugees. The Syrian refugees from 2016 were legit. The asylum seekers which actually drove up much of the cost weren't as far as I am concern and are a separate issue. But it seems some folks don't want to make a distinction between the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
For me, as I stated before I usually vote Conservative because I want the government to live within its means, I don't have an issue paying to help a refugee who has nothing (I am not being literal here, most people these days have clothes and cell phones and the image of a refugee in tattered clothes is something which happened in a different time and isn't usually the way it happens) to get settled and integrated as fast as possible. It is the decent and right thing to do.
Seems you don't want to accept the truth of the costs associated with refugees. Yes the facts are from Canadian sources of just refugee costs. You may think it's the right thing to do but others that are working tax payers may feel bringing in more people to drive our countries deficit billions deeper into the hole is not the right thing to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Again I will write about left/right media. There is no such classification, I used to believe it, but no longer.
You see, it is two markets for which every news rag/website/or social media post happens across your desk designed for your point of view or side. Quite simply each side panders to a market "buck a beer/gender issues", that writes/appeases to that market that consume and get traffic.
That traffic equates to share performance of the company, media (not news, as there is no such thing in Canada anymore) depends on market share and shareholder appeasement. CBC is out of that picture with full government funding, Lamestream media is now part of the 575 million media slush fund in which the Torstar gets 113K per day in subsidies.
No such thing in CanadaStan as free press and Section 2A of Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees a free press, along with free speech - neither of which you have anymore.
The Sheep are well asleep - and placated to blinding influence of government into our "rights", this is exactly what the government wants - Sheep. 1984 actually was achieved with the signing New Constitution in 1982 and Signed of the New Charter of rights and freedoms in 1985 - we are here in 2020.
Orders in Council - OIC - Are the equivalent of communist dictatorship - end of story. Stay sleepy sheep, stay sleepy.
I absolutely accept there is a cost associated with refugees. I even broke it down for you how much it cost a single Canadian in 2016 to house all 47 000 of them. What I don't accept inflated numbers based on you adding the cost of illegal asylum seekers to actual refugees to support your narrative that refugees are getting a golden handshake.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
You are whinging about helping someone get a leg up and becoming a productive member of our society when they have nothing. You are under a delusion that a refugee is a massive expense that is incurred on us without any kind of return on that investment.
However, I suspect there is more to your reluctance to help refugees than money. So I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is. You should go find a refugee family and tell them to get out of Canada. Make sure you look the kids right in the eye when you say that to them. Tell them it is too expensive for you to make sure they have a safe place to live for a year or until they get on their feet. Order them back to whatever bad situation they came from. Would that satisfy your economic issues? How about the homeless? They are a drain on our resources. Best have them next on your list of things that cost you money.
It's not our responsibility to take care of foreigner's that come here with nothing to offer, we have enough freeloaders already and don't need more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
So stop your whinging and go tell the freeloaders they can't come here.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
Yes we do lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
I know of many my age that just do nothing. Lots of scum just rather party for life then actually do something like working lol.
The young generation now are getting lazier and want everything given to them for nothing. The work ethics on some are of these younger folks are just horrible [emoji1787]
Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk
Your the only one bellyaching about other opinions...lmao. Why don't you get it, many people do not agree with our current immigration system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
I don't think it's a matter of refugees ... I think it's a matter of how immigrants come in ... what I am suspicious of, is if the government brings them in and offers all kinds of support ... (1) are they bringing in the right people (ones that will lead to employment and contributions to economy) and (2) do they provide a model that will give them incentive to go out and seek employment? As you know, these are two very important factors, that certainly are analyzed to death when a private sponsorship application is considered by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
So, with that, I invite you to review this report from Stats Canada - all you really need to do is read the short Overview at the top. Let me know what you think ...
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/.../00001-eng.htm
Don't confuse rights with responsibilities and how we got them.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
Under the abortion Act, men weren't given any rights.
The divorce act was only a year old at the time, medical procedures were much more dangerous than today and a woman's primary role was....well, you know, so it's not hard to see why men/fathers weren't included in the act.
Long after the Abortion Act was enacted, women were given the right to enforce responsibility upon men for the birth of their child, born or unborn and rightfully so.
Times have changed, fathers are much more responsible in their child's development and deserve better recognition, period.
When the 1987 Family Responsibility Act was introduced, society accepted that you could indeed force an individual to alter their life for the care/support of their child, including the unborn. 34(1)(h) Ontario’s Family Law Act permits a court to order “payment of expenses in respect of a child’s prenatal care and birth”. This confirms that you're a father before birth and responsible.
There's an argument to be made that the Abortion Act is outdated and a father's rights should extend to some prenatal circumstances.
I'm not against abortions. I understand the obvious need in today's society but almost all of those needs can and should be dealt with in a respectable time frame.
If given the question, l think the majority of society would be against any late term abortions if it's simply because it's an inconvenience to the mother. We've certainly decided that's an unacceptable excuse from a father, regardless of the hardship on one's life that might follow.
A willing father deserves the option to have his child if the mother chooses to carry to late term and wants to abort for no other reason than her future sacrifices.
That would give merit to the rights of a father for their child's birth and place some level of responsibility during a woman's pregnancy.
I believe the abortion act will eventually be revisited in the future.
Here's my prediction.
Two married women will flip a coin to see who carries for the nine months, they'll separate prior to birth and a late term abortion scenario will play out. A court case will ensue, making it to the Supreme Court and a decision will force the government to address the Act.
That's not that far fetched. The pandora's box has been opened, it's only a matter of time before they step into mens shoes and see the level of hypocrisy.
Debating your ignorant comments with facts isn't bellyaching my friend. You were the one who first started tearing down refugees by complaining they get so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
Many people are fine with helping refugees get settled in this country. A minority don't agree with our current immigration system. Why can't you get that?
This country was built by refugees and they continue to contribute to it despite you clearly showing that you dislike the fact they get some help by the rest of the country when they come here.
When we are speaking of refugees, normally we don't get a choice about which ones we get. Legal immigrants sure, we want the best we can get. However, we want to help refugees and legal immigrants get on their feet as soon as possible because if the quicker that happens, the quicker they won't need to keep getting aid. Both groups have different challenges to get fiscally independent. At the end of the day, any government assistance is gone after one year or when the refugee starts to work whichever comes first.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkB
As for the link, the number Syrian refugees was large but I didn't realize that only 53% were on government assistance so the number of refugees getting more benefits than some think isn't all of them. I did realize that the Syrian refugees did take longer than normal to get employed because of the illegal immigrants coming in and tying the system up, that situation is hardly the fault of the refugees. Taking out any frustrations we have with this government on refugees is wrong.
Maybe you should speak for yourself, you are not the majority of this country...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Both sentences in this paragraph are only partly true. I would respectfully submit that most people are OK with helping folks settle,initially,but only in a very short term. According to many articles in left/liberal media,most Canadians realize that our immigration system is like a screen door on a submarine needing a complete overhaul and are frustrated that nothing is being done to address the issue while the system continues to bleed money unabated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
Being ok (or fine) helping folks get settled is a far cry from the narrative that refugees are a financial drain on our resources. Also you can be frustrated that nothing is being done to address perceived issues in the immigration system. What you can't do is complain that refugees are getting more than you when that is not true or condemn them for being freeloaders when they have not been given an opportunity to contribute.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
However, I disagree that the immigration isn't bleeding money or is a screen door on a sub. We have an immigration system to bring in immigrants and refugees and we pay taxes to maintain that program. The system is designed to bring in immigrants and refugees and get them settled and that is what is doing. The immigration system also tries to screen out the people we don't want. It has more successes than failures. I am not sure a complete overhaul is necessary, We can talk about the changes necessary to update the system if you want but we shouldn't be pointing to the people in the system as the problem.
For decades immigrants/refugees have been getting faced with the freeloader tag not matter who they were. Italian, Irish, Jewish, Ukraine, etc who weren't deemed as "one of us" have been getting demonized when they had not done anything wrong for a variety of reasons and it really needs to stop.
The fact that the major cities in this country are working multicultural entities suggests that I am indeed a portion of the majority of this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by canadaman30
Now Now... don't be like FMC that can't even post a link and makes things up so much it is pathetic... so .... let's see...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
https://globalnews.ca/news/5397306/c...igration-poll/
Majority of Canadians think immigration should be limited: poll
https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-pol...tion-on-canada
For example, a majority (55%) agree (30% strongly/25% somewhat) that they would like to see tighter border controls that allow fewer immigrants into Canada. A similar proportion (54%) agrees (28% strongly/26% somewhat) that Canada is too welcoming to immigrants.
... and one of the most outspoken Libs....
https://o.canada.com/news/david-suzu...aper-interview
David Suzuki says Canada is 'full' and calls country's immigration policy 'crazy
... and that was before the LIbEralS went full idiot and we ended up with ober 50% more immigrants and 50,000 illegal immigrants....
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-n...rder-1.5169249
and even those that are supposed to leave aren't
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/ov...ing-in-canada/
Over 50,000 immigrants, many who illegally entered Canada through the border, were ordered deported but remain in the country,.....
now a backlog of 64,929 cases relating to illegal immigration
So not a majority but a big bunch so maybe we will call it stretching it a bit though, but NP.... I wish they would post the exact question, it is so easy to lead a poll through wording and limiting the options.
Canada's LIbEral immigration policy is based around two things and f*****ing existing Canadians and LIbEral votes..... look a the money being dumped to get the useless UN seat... power, bragging points, pride, prestige .... covering lies, incompetence, arrogance and so much disdain and hatred we now have WExit party growing and a PM that is such a Quebec elitist he didn't show up for many important Canada150 celebrations and when he did he even decided to not list Alberta... his continued actions throw out that "accidentally forgot" sh** long ago!